Rowell Industrial Corp. vs.

Court of Appeals
[G.R. No. 167714. March 7, 2007]
Facts:
Rowell Industrial is engaged in manufacturing tin cans for use in packaging of consumer products,
e.g., foods, paints, among other things. Taripe was employed by petitioner on November 8, 1999 as a
rectangular power press machine operator Taripe alleged that upon employment, he was made to
sign a document, which was not explained to him but which was made a condition for him to be
taken in and for which he was not furnished a copy.
Issue:

Whether respondent was a regular employee

Held:

Under Art 280 regular employees are classified into:

(1) regular employees by nature of work - those employees who perform a particular activity
which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of
their length of service;
(2) regular employees by years of service - those employees who have been performing the job,
regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year.
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, however, does not proscribe or prohibit an employment
contract with a fixed period. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee
consist of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties
are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities. There is
nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of the
employees duties.

In the case at bar, Taripe signed a contract of employment good only for a period of five months
unless the said contract is renewed by mutual consent. Along with other contractual employees, he
was hired only to meet the increase in demand for packaging materials for the Christmas season and
to build up stock levels for the early part of the year.
Standards for valid fixed term employment:
(1) the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties,
without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
(2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter.

Application of these standards to this case:

1) The employment contract signed by respondent Taripe did not mention that he was hired
only for a specific undertaking, the completion of which had been determined at the time of
2010 www.pinoylegal.com

Page 1

his engagement. The said employment contract neither mentioned that respondent Taripes
services were seasonal in nature and that his employment was only for the duration of the
Christmas season as purposely claimed by petitioner RIC. What was stipulated in the said
contract was that Taripes employment was contractual for the period of five months.

Also RIC failed to controvert the claim that Taripe was made to sign the contract of
employment, prepared by RIC, as a condition for his hiring. Such contract in which the terms
are prepared by only one party and the other party merely affixes his signature signifying his
adhesion thereto is called contract of adhesion. It is an agreement in which the parties
bargaining are not on equal footing, the weaker partys participation being reduced to the
alternative to take it or leave it. In the present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job, was
compelled to agree to the contract, including the five-month period of employment, just so he
could be hired.

2) As a power press operator, a rank and file employee, he can hardly be on equal terms with
petitioner RIC. As the Court of Appeals said, almost always, employees agree to any terms of
an employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find work given
their ordinary qualifications.

He was a regular employee

As a rectangular power press machine operator, in charge of manufacturing covers for four liters
rectangular tin cans, was holding a position which is necessary and desirable in the usual business
or trade of petitioner RIC, which was the manufacture of tin cans. Thus, he was a regular employee.

2010 www.pinoylegal.com

Page 2